Welcome to the FPA

The Foreign Policy Association Bridges America to the World

New York, NY, Globalization has created a world without frontier and the Foreign Policy association (FPA) is America’s bridge to the rest of the world. Founded in 1918 as the League of Free Nations Association, the Foreign Policy Association’s originated with 141 distinguished Americans to support President Woodrow Wilson's efforts to achieve a just peace. Five years later, it became the Foreign Policy Association with a commitment to the careful study of all sides of international questions affecting the U.S. John Foster Dulles and Eleanor Roosevelt were among the incorporators.

The FPA is a non-profit organization dedicated to inspiring the American public to learn more about the world. It serves as a catalyst for developing awareness, understanding of, and providing informed opinions on global issues. Through its balanced, nonpartisan programs and publications, the FPA encourages citizens to participate in the foreign policy process.

While FPA's mission remains much the same today, the programs implemented to achieve this mission have evolved with time and have helped accomplished several milestones, which help explain the dynamism of the association and it’s role in developing an informed citizenry. Through its initiatives, FPA hopes to help advance human interests beyond America’s physical and cultural frontiers.

The Foreign Policy Association celebrated its 57th year in 1995. With a membership of close to 600, it continued to involve discerning participants from the Greater New York area who meet 11 times a year to hear and to question leading authorities on foreign affairs.

FPA pioneered international affairs radio discussions by broadcasting New York meetings and weekly talks on "The World Today" over the NBC network. Today however, FPA's national television and radio programs, and educational outreach across the country, bring FPA programs to millions of Americans. For instance, the Great Decisions program, entirely based on the annual briefing book prepared by FPA's editors, has become the largest nonpartisan public education program on international affairs in the world.

Business, academy and international organizations that share a commitment to educating Americans about world issues make up the Board of Directors. In a his monthly publication, Noel V. Lateef—president of the Foreign Policy Association declared, “In 2008 the Foreign Policy Association marked its 90th year of public education in world affairs. This anniversary was celebrated with a sense of heightened purpose and with confidence that the coming years leading up to our centennial will be among the Association¹s best.” He later added, “Our confidence derives from our expanded capabilities to engage the public in general and educators and students in particular. Underpinning our programmatic outreach is the conviction that education is key to a robust constitutional democracy.”

Inarguably, these qualified leaders are committed to advancement on not only of the American society as a whole, but also to the ideals of the international community as they relate to its American counterparts. Decisions made on the international scene inevitably affect the way domestic legislators shape policies, which in turn, influence the lives of citizens. Such a dynamic environment cannot be ignored and demand an engaged and vigilant citizenry if this republic based on democratic principles is to strive and remain competitive; hence the important role of the Foreign Policy association.

In addition, this role underwent enormous expansion in the 1970s. Among those who have addressed the association’s audiences are Great Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and China's Premier Zhao Ziyang. Furthermore, India's Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi also made similar address. Other influential figures include Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Australia's Prime Minister Robert Hawke, and the Soviet Union's Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduard A. Shevardnadze.

His Majesty King Moshoeshoe II of Lesotho, Nicaragua's President Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico, President Carlos Saul Menem of Argentina, as well as then-Governor Bill Clinton, Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense have made captivating addresses for the NGO. These aforementioned occurrences reinforced the status of the association and boosted its credibility ratings in the eyes of the world.

Moreover, FPA employs a very proactive approach when it comes to educating young people and prepare them for the plurality of divergence whether here in America or abroad. Indeed, the newest member of the Board of Directors, Marilyn Carlson Nelson noted, "The contribution the Foreign Policy Association makes to informing debate on, and understanding of, global issues and to providing a broad-based curriculum for colleges is dramatic. One might say it is essential if Americans are to be truly informed and engaged in our nation¹s role in the world."

That school of thought incited the creation of the Foreign Policy Association University (FPAU). Along with its competent teachers, the university offers numerous courses in foreign policy services. For example, individuals seeking employment with the Central Intelligence Agency, the United Nations or the Federal Bureau of Investigations can register in the course that teaches them about the process and the mechanics of the job. Similarly, professionals who are not satisfied with their current career choices can find a platform that helps them make better, informed choices. Most interestingly, the various partnerships the FPA has with several universities, the instructors are able to teach those courses on partner campuses making it convenient for students to attend.

In spite of its rich history, the FPA continues to evolve with the times as the Internet and its many dimensions evolve. Foreign Policy Blogs is the largest network of global affairs blogs with an estimated circulation of 60,000 subscribers. Staffed by professional contributors from the worlds of journalism, academia, business, non-profits and think tanks, the FPB network tracks global developments from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and everywhere in between, daily. The FPB network is a production of the Foreign Policy Association.

Finally, the association launched the Great Decision, mentioned earlier, in Oregon. Since it original launch in 1954, the program’s in-depth analysis and coverage of global issues have been called the best in foreign affairs on the global scene. The Great Decisions Global Affairs Education Discussion Program includes an annual Briefing Book, the Great Decisions television series on PBS, the National Opinion Ballot Report, thousands of discussion groups across the country and the GD Online newsletter.

Taking a stroll at FPA offices at 470 Park Avenue South in New York, one may get a sense that the workers there have no sense of organization with huge piles of papers on every desk and even on the floor. However, upon the realization of what these devoted, modestly pay employees do and how well it all comes together, one may actually feel some appreciation towards them. The Founding Fathers had a vision: an informed electorate will make informed decisions in the affairs of their state. The Foreign Policy Association reinforces these values and expands the vision through its innovative and dynamic initiatives.
Rapadoo,

Arizona Immigration Law (II)

States legislators in support of the measure echoed similar sentiments arguing they did what they had to in the face of the federal government’s indifference.   Arizona was merely complimenting (but not contradicting) federal policy and/or filling a void where no policy existed. Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee inferred, "States like Arizona should not have to act on their own, but Washington's decades of neglect for border security leave them no choice."

Meanwhile, Critics of the law were just as passionate in their opposition to the bill. First, President Obama’s administration, one of the harshest opponents of Arizona SB-1070, wasted no time bringing an action suit against the state of Arizona seeking an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. Second, at least four pending lawsuits against the Arizona law sought similar ends, one of which was allowed to move forward after a federal judge threw out a challenge by Gov. Jan Brewer and others. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a detailed ruling denying the governor’s motion to dismiss the claims. In her ruling, she found that the plaintiffs, led by the Phoenix advocacy group Friendly House and the American Civil Liberties Union had enough ground to bring the lawsuit. Similarly, Mexico also challenged the measure and so have civil libertarians, arguing the new policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment's search-and-seizure clause.

Furthermore, opponents of the measure refer to it as a “vague law” due largely to the obscure language used to write the law. Term such as “reasonable suspicion” as police discretion is a perfect example since the lack of specificity in the language casted too wide a net and may help target innocent citizens unfairly. Other scholars argued the vagueness of the law may even --as it pertained to a highly critical Hispanic press-- provided government the tools to target and harass individuals deemed as nuisances; hence, a chilling effect preventing the exercise of their freedom of expression or contributions to the marketplace of ideas. The Obama administration hopes its aggressive actions against Arizona will send a strong message and deter states such as South Carolina and Texas, among many, from considering their own version of Arizona SB-1070.

As the United States vs. Arizona makes its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 1, “I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary,” exclaimed the governor vowing to appeal Judge Bolton’s ruling. Much to the contrary, the federal government is allocating and utilizing all of its resources to ensure that the immigration debate does not go down that slippery slope: actions that could unleash unprecedented ripple effects throughout the states, or worse, erode the federal government’s preemptive supremacy.

Discussions around the Arizona Act unveiled various interesting opinions. Some looked to Aristotle and his golden mean argument in pursuit of a balancing act. Others vehemently reject Gov. Brewer’s campaign as a political stunt fueling an already highly divided, saturated atmosphere. Still, other people highlighted the judicial process to frame their arguments for or against the Arizona measure. For instance, some feared that the failure to carefully weigh the competing interests of Arizonians against those of the greater society while taking into account the role of the federal government might cause certain states to target individuals unfairly. A system of checks and balances, argued some members, is a necessary tool to ensure that states do not abuse their power.

In addition, many concerned citizens stated while it was important to consider the rights of American citizens, it was equally important to consider their lives as it relates to the economic health of particular states. Jobs offered to illegal immigrants, they argued, are jobs denied to American citizens and could potentially raise unemployment rates; hence making life miserable for Americans. While some members of the press conceded the necessity for immigration reforms were long overdue, they also highlighted the importance of a comprehensive approach to ensure uniformity in the application of the law. Those analysts perceive the problem as a breakdown in society rather than a problem of particular ethnic groups.

In spite off obvious disagreements on immigration issues, two ideologically consistent views emerged from the discussions: a consensus on the supremacy of the US Constitution and the importance of the judicial process in ensuring careful analysis of a problem by qualified and trained professionals before the application of any piece of arbitrary legislation.

Rapadoo,

 Sources:

1)    Nill, A. (Producer). (2010). Social and economic justice. [Web]. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/14/arizona-poll-immigration/

2)    Bloomberg, M. (2010, April 28). How Arizona new immigration law will hurt America: mayor Michael Bloomberg assails the new immigration statute. New York Daily news, Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_how_arizonas_law_will_hurt_america_mayor_michael_bloomberg_assails_the_new_immig.html.

3)    Gladiel, P. (2005, July 6). Jobs Americans won'd do? An open letter to president George w. bush. Retrieved from http://vdare.com/gadiel/050706_letter.htm.

4)    Markon, Jerry, & McCrummen, Stephanie. (2010, July 29). Arizona immigration law sb 1070 - judge blocks some sections.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072801794.html.

5)    NEPA Conservative , Initials. (2010, April 30). Arizona versus federal immigration law. Retrieved from http://news-political.com/2010/04/30/arizona-versus-federal-immigration-law/.

6)    Archibold, R. C. (2010, April 23). The new york times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html       

Gerson, M. (2010, April 29). The washington post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/04/why_conservatives_should_oppos.html 

Arizona Immigration Law (I)

 Stare decisis is a school of thought that encourages judges to interpret and apply the laws based on precedents established by other court rulings. Based on the common law, this process ensures internal consistency and predictable application of the entire body of law. However, in the case of Arizona SB-1070, legal scholars wonder what the precedent for San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will be on November 1, 2010 when it hears United States v Arizona. After all, Arizona is pioneering this immigration legislation initiative, an area seen exclusively, through the eyes of the Supreme Court, as a federal domain except in certain conditions.

Arizona SB-1070 makes it a state misdemeanor offense for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying required federal documents, bars state or local officials from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on people who shelter, hire or transport illegal aliens. Failure to comply with the new law would result in a $500 minimum fine as a first offense, and a fine up to $1,000 dollars and 6 months in jail for second time offenders. This controversial immigration law provoked a heated debate nationwide even before Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, signed the bill into law on April 23, 2010. While critics and proponents alike agreed that it is the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, their opinions of the legislation have drawn sharp contrasts. Supporters argued the law forbids the use of race as the sole basis for investigating immigration status. On the other hand, critics decried the legislation encouraged racial profiling, an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Since immigration debates in the U.S. usually reflect the social, economic and political climate of particular periods, Arizona’s bold attempt on reform necessitates a historical frame to contextualize it. In addition, arguments on both sides of the debate also provide some context as it pertains to the law’s content and its affects on Arizonians. Finally, Arizona SB-1070’s deliberate intrusion into exclusive federal domains puts the system of federalism to task, thus thrusting Arizona in a direct conflict with the federal government.

“Yes,” declared Senator John McCain –Arizona republican and former presidential candidate— “we need to control our borders. No one argues with that... But we don’t need ballot initiatives that make people think we want them to abandon their hopes because some of us don’t believe the American Dream is big enough to share anymore.” Yet, the history of immigration reform in the U.S. sometimes paints a very different picture than the comprehensive one the senator described. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the 1965 Immigration Act were race-based. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and 1996, granted amnesty to thousands of immigrants while attempting to double the U.S. Border Patrol to 10,000 in five years at the most heavily trafficked areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. More recently, the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, giving the federal government broad powers to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists has highlighted the discourse of overreaching governance, ethnicity, race and social stratification.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Arizona housed about 460,000 undocumented immigrants and until the passage of SB-1070, immigration offenses were violations of federal law, something most local law-enforcement agencies could not enforce. The legislative approval came after months of impassioned debate, fueled – to a large degree-- by an outrage over the murder of rancher Robert Krentz shot along well-known smuggling routes near the border. Among the Border States, Arizona has the largest number of illegal aliens crossing from Mexico and holds the most arrests by US Border Control. The measure passed the Arizona House by a 35-21 vote with exclusive Republican support. It then passed the Senate with a vote of 17-11 supported by all Republicans except Sen. Carolyn Allen. Both House and Senate Democrats opposed the bill. As a result, many legal challenges disputing the constitutionality of the law immediately followed.

Although public opinion generally differs vastly on immigration issues, the Arizona measure is popular in that state and elsewhere. According to the latest polls, 52 percent of Arizonians supported the legislation and while some residents did not support it whole-heartedly, they expressed the need for immigration reform. Supporters of the legislation have attempted to draw a clear distinction between Arizona’s stance on illegal immigration and immigration in general. They stress that the issues surrounding immigration in Border States were complex and did not reflect the black and white, clear-cut options other states had. While some call the Southern part of Arizona the “free-for-all” half, residents grow increasingly wary of the prevalence of violent crimes spilling over from Mexico and its drug lords and the flood of illegal aliens invading their state.  Sen. Ron Gould, a Republican from Lake Havasu City declared, "The U.S. Constitution says the federal government shall protect states from foreign invasion. The federal government has not done that. People get attacked continually; hence, Arizona needs to act."

Rapadoo,

Privacy, a Right to a Privilege (I)

         

         The great Constitution of the United States of America contains no expressed right to privacy, which leaves the Supreme Court in an uphill battle trying to establish some general guidelines as to what constitutes an individual's right to privacy.  For the most part, the Bill of Rights suggests that the Framers of the Constitution had some concerns about protecting specific aspects of individual privacy. For instance, the privacy of beliefs framed in the First Amendment and privacy of the home against demands to house soldiers guaranteed in the Third Amendment. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment addressed privacy of persons and their possessions against unreasonable searches, and the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination provides protection for the privacy of personal information. The Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights," in the Bill of Rights, "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." 

Scholars agree that the meaning of the Ninth Amendment is somewhat elusive, thus privacy issues not only remain highly controversial but also constitute a slippery slope, which some attributes mainly to the ever-expending worlds of innovation and technology. As people get more comfortable with the illusions created by the Internet and its multiple dimensions, they tend to get complacent and less concerned about its implications. At this rate, the so-called right to privacy may soon become a right to a privilege. Unless people implement proactive and pragmatic solutions to retain vanishing values of freedom, this once natural right will dissipate.

         It is not a secret: an individual's right to privacy, a vital component of any healthy democracy, has become an endangered species in American society.  This era of Facebook, YouTube, twitter, “War on Terror” and our evolving Internet culture is rapidly redefining societal norms. Faithful members of social networks have little to no control over their own privacy and social networks have demonstrated that they are not bound by loyalty or ethics with respects to their privacy rights. However, people are willing to take enormous risks just to be cool or fit in.

Careful analysis of this relatively new phenomenon unveils three main factors eroding individuals of their rights to privacy. First, the overreaching hands of government, which American citizens have experienced first hand with the passage of the Patriot Act one month after September 11, 2001. Second, the rejection of citizenry for the seemingly limitless powers of consumerism via the Internet poses real threats to privacy. Both Sparks and Sunstein’s observations have been proven valid and on point in their assessment of the problem. Third, the rise of social media empires raises serious concerns among experts with their deliberate, yet subtle assaults on privacy rights. So-called social media have renegotiated the values of societal norms while reframing the argument with regard to what is acceptable or not.  Rights so fundamental to the human experience should undeniably be a priority to all citizens, but society’s plunge towards the realm of the privilege of privacy seems inevitable.

         One Aristotelian school of thought successfully argued happiness is the end to all things, which means that humans engage in a perpetual pursuit of happiness. It is natural, reasoned Aristotle, for people to live social lives because only as a member of society can individuals truly be happy. This perception implies successful societies require some structure and form of government to survive. For instance, the United States of America utilizes what experts call a deliberate democracy as opposed to other countries like China, which embraces communism, and Burma also known as Myanmar that is military ruled or a dictatorship.

While determining factors of successful forms of governments are entirely subjective, responsible governance shares a common interest: that is finding the intricate balance between the powers of government and the rights of individual citizens. Here again Aristotle's notion of temperate mean comes into play. He wrote in his book Nicomachean II (page 6); "Now virtue is concerned with passions and actions, in which excess is a form of failure, and so is defect, while the intermediate is praised and is a form of success; and being praised and being successful are both characteristics of virtue. Therefore virtue is a kind of mean, since, as we have seen, it aims at what is intermediate." Successful or virtuous societies must find that intermediate mean, which provides government with the necessary tools to promote the national interest while validating its citizens’ rights to pursue their own happiness. 

         It is therefore safe to infer individuals deprived of the right to privacy could eventually lose their freedom of speech as well. For as history has taught us, people get self-conscious to the point of modifying their behaviors when under the watchful eyes of influential others.  Hence, just knowing the government is on the other end of our phone calls, in our living rooms, workplace, or church instills chilling effects preventing citizens’ free speech. Solove made a similar argument in his "Nothing to Hide" article. He stated that the "utilitarian balancing between individual rights and the common good rarely favors individual rights—unless the interest advanced on the side of the common good is trivial.  Greater society will generally win when its interests are balanced against those of the individual."

Following this logic, the equilibrium that kept the U.S. government and its citizens on equal footing when it came to privacy rights was lost with the passage of the Patriot Act after the deplorable events of September 11, 2001. Granted, a country under attack or in a state of war must undertake drastic measures to fortify its borders and protect its population. Further, the utter shock and horrors of airliners striking the World Trade Center towers was undoubtedly traumatic for all Americans and will haunt their dreams for years to come. Nevertheless, as the government tried to be swift in its response, it alienated the rights of its citizens.

In addition, the Telecommunication Act between 2001 and 2006 tipped that balance even further towards the government and its corporate partners. To the surprise of many, the National Security Agency (NSA) urged AT&T, Verizon, Quest and BellSouth to share records of their customers’ conversations with the government without any legal authority. Arguing the legality of such actions, critics imagined obtaining warrants on legal grounds to combat terrorism would be relatively easy for the NSA in a post-9/11 era. However, it insisted on such controversial and harmful requests fully aware of its implications.

AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth complied with the NSA’s requests forfeiting the rights of their customers; however, Quest challenged the National Security Agency to produce legal documents for their request. This example validates Solove's point: it is simply not enough to say that since one has nothing to hide, it is ok to allow government and its agencies to permit "roving wiretap" authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored.

These deliberate and intrusive actions undermine the social value of privacy, considered by many theorists to be inherently personal that validates the sovereignty of individuals. Can we, for example, call prisoners free men and women simply because they can eat, sleep, play, and even study while in incarceration? The forfeiture of their rights comes at the hands of their crimes; consequently, prison guards monitor them constantly.

The evidence seems clear: too much censorship constitutes some form of social control, a punishment for deviance, not sovereignty for free citizens. Freedom of expression has a linear relationship with privacy rights and government boundaries; hence, any abuse of authority or variation in one factor will affect the other factors directly. Such rationale compelled observers to ask one question: how far the government will go to deny the rights of its citizens in the name of the greater good?

Rapadoo,

mcDonalization of Society I

              It is not without merit that Henry Fayol is credited or described by many scholars as the “father of modern operational-management theory.” The Frenchman was a visionary in his approach to organizational management. Although some would be critical of his ideology, as did many of his contemporaries; nevertheless, his lasting influence was unmistakable. In fact, his groundbreaking work served as blueprints for modern operational management. Later though, Theorists such as Max Weber and Frederic Taylor offered some more scholarly and micro approaches to management other than the prescriptive one Fayol offered. Although all three theories shared some characteristics, Weber’s perspective was largely idealistic. According to Miller, his Theory of Bureaucracy unveiled characteristics of a particular form of organization. He argued that they were closed systems that emphasized the importance of rules and the functioning of authority.  

Frederick Taylor presented yet another perspective of management. He developed the Theory of Scientific Management. In this model, he abandoned the macro perspective for a more efficient micro construct of organizational functioning. As we track agency throughout the history of formal operational management, we will discuss its role in the classical era, the humanistic approaches, and the McDonaldlization phenomenon.

Being at the dusk of a rigid pre-industrial era and the dawn of the industrial revolution, the mechanistic ideology that shaped industry’s new horizon seemed inevitable.  Hence, the diffusion of the “machine metaphor,” which relied on the principles of specialization, standardization, and predictability, knew no barriers.  In fact, the unidirectional flow of communication in the classical era ensured that agency rested solely with management. The worker was viewed as a specialized robot in human flesh. George Ritzer’s assembly line argument is a prime example. It did not lack efficiency, it was made up of highly specialized tasks, and the division of labor confined workers to one predictable skill. He called these practices the basic elements of formal rationalization.  In sum, Fayol prescribed to managers, Weber aimed at the organization, and Taylor invented the best way to do a job. None on them advocated on behalf of the worker. Therefore, agency for them was nonexistent and their valued contribution was physical in nature. These ethical standards may be questionable or even morally repugnant to a post-modernist, given our accelerated rate of growth since. Nonetheless, the productivity factor was by no means spurious. Without any a priori scientific paradigms, classical management quickly became the norm. The “mom and pop” management style dissipated, giving birth to the dehumanizing culture of industrialism and its robots.

Naturally, if we accept the premise of the first law of thermodynamics, we know that power does not exist in a vacuum. When we squeeze power one way, it eventually comes out somewhere else.  Not surprisingly, as a result of the oppressive nature of classical management of organizations, several new theories would emerge trying to shift the balance.

Inspired to a great degree by the Hawthorne Studies, the spotlight was placed on human needs. Elton Mayo and his research team suggested management practices that met the needs of workers to increase productivity. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory was instrumental. He argued that in order to reach self-actualization, human needs had to be met at a very basic level. He was simply saying that happy workers would be more productive. Douglas McGregor was another strong advocate of the Human Relations approach. He developed the Theory X and Theory Y. In The X factor, management was motivated by remnants of the classical era, whereas the Y factor praised managers who emphasized Human Relations principles.

           Unfortunately, the manipulative measures in which this approach was implemented made it short lived. Consequently, the Human Resources approach emerged. It was a revised version of the previous approach, but put emphasis both on productivity and the satisfaction of individual workers. Agency, in both these approaches, shifted hands. Organizations loosened their unforgiving rules and workers were afforded some rights even though communication moved horizontally during that time. That was a 180-degree turn around from the iron fist of the classical concept. To illustrate, today’s buzz is about Google’s human resources approach to operational management. One can argue that this company goes beyond the basic need of its workers. Google offers free rides to work, free breakfast in Google cafés, free gourmet food in more than 19 onsite Google’s upscale restaurants, enormous free gyms, massages, resting places, washing machines, subsidized daycare program, etc… This approach was unheard of even at the pinnacle of the humanitarian era. It is not surprising that Google now receives about 20,000 applications monthly as a result. This illustration is a clear indication that Google’s implementation of Human Resources principles is at least one of the factors boosting profitability and productivity. Most importantly, perhaps, this management style also confirms that the “happy cow” metaphor is alive and well.

                                                                                                                     Part 2 continues below           

Rapadoo,

McDonalization of Society II

Moreover, the “McDonald phenomenon” of almost a decade ago baffled observers even today. This occurred in 1992 during the now infamous L.A. Riots. In the midst of total destruction that the city faced at the crushing hands of rioters protesting the not guilty verdict of the four police officers in the Rodney King case, 30 McDonald restaurants within the riot area remained untouched. Everything else was impotent to the fist of destruction. How could this be? Many quickly attributed this to the restaurant’s philanthropist efforts in the affected communities, the success of its public relations initiatives, and even luck. But as I read the McDonalization of society, I now wonder if it were indeed that simple or if there were other factors at play.

Further analysis of these occurrences seem to add some validity to the argument that Ray Kroc’s initiatives have worked their way to the psyche of society.

            Today, we determine value in terms of quantitative velocity as opposed to the outdated qualitative originality. For instance, we are willing to replace our relatively new cell phones for newer, overpriced, and supposedly faster ones in spite of the erosion of individuals’ privacy embedded in the convenient technology. Further, we are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the intimacy of face-to-face interaction.  Instead, texting is fast, efficient, concise, and emotions are reduced to a few pretentious symbols. We LOL (laughing out loud) for instance without even opening our mouth. Moreover, dieting and exercising have virtually become motionless activities except perhaps in the case of devout athletes and/or empowered youth. We swallow a pill, drink a shake, or wear a belt in some cases, go to sleep, and “boom” we are said to have run the equivalent of a few miles and have lost weight.  In addition, who has time for lecture halls, professors, and fellow students when we can get an entire education staring at a computer screen in the comfort of our home while multitasking? The more productive we seem to be, the less time we want to spend doing it. Hence, we make up routines that ensure efficiency, predictability, and to some extent standardization. Sadly enough, we fight for individualism and basic humanity in the workplace; yet, we live highly rationalized lives cleverly contrived as self-actualization and luxury. In other words, we have become nothing more than robots with few remaining human characteristics racing against time. Ronald Takaki was right on point when he said; “The self was place in confinement, its emotions controlled, and its spirits subdued.” Although we will not admit it, we no longer value spontaneity. In fact, we do not want any surprises. We are habitual users who repeatedly migrate toward the same activities over and over. One cannot help but wonder where does agency go when rationalization invades every aspect of our personal lives.

            Frederick Taylor has been long gone, yet his gigantic footprints are implanted in the psyche of societal norms. The concept of McDonalization was simply a tool of diffusion. It was a bridge standing tall over culture lag and nostalgia, and it linked us inevitably to the industrial machine. Kroc’s innovations took a relatively macro concept and fit it into the practicality of daily living. As a result, we build ourselves a “scientifically” managed environment founded on Taylor’s “one best way” mantra and Weber’s notion of rationalization.

            In conclusion, taking a retroactive look at McDonald’s irrefutable success over the last half-century, the shift in the psychographics of the global society becomes evident. Hence, it is safe to argue that beyond selling Big Macs, happy meals, and building franchises, Ray Kroc was selling something that was, undoubtedly, more powerful than a full stomach. He was selling ideals, which would subsequently give birth to a psychological revolution in the American consciousness. Our adoption of that ideology gave us the touch screen, post modernist status we so thoroughly enjoy today. Further, those ideals were not indigenous to the American society. The world wide application of the McDonalization theory exemplifies their universality. Finally, the only remaining aspect of the diffusion process of this McDonalization ideology is an invention robot that will replace our politicians. They would be efficient, predictable, highly productive, and a whole lot cheaper.

Rapadoo,

Flickering Hope

Immersed in the agony of the distraught victims, and 20 million cubic meters of rubble, some little candles --sparks of hope-- barely noticeable, are flickering in Haiti. They are optimistic signs indicating that the lives of many Haitians are improving. However, if like most people, you were bombarded with traumatic images of the reprehensible conditions plaguing the refugee camps on June 12^th, you too, might have missed some stories of success slowly bubbling to the surface.

The situation in Haiti is by no mean unambiguous. Observers would need two sets of lenses to fully comprehend the enormity of the problem.  First, “retrospective” lenses would bring into focus pre-catastrophic conditions: they could be anachronistic, yet imperative to grasp that reality. Second, “actuality” lenses would unveil the post-quake reality, serve as a measuring device, and perhaps help broaden perceptions.

Absent a set of binoculars, former President Bill Clinton’s remarks will have to do. "To those who say we have not done enough, I think all of us who are working in this area agree this is a harder job (than the tsunami)," Clinton stated referring to the massive 2004 Indonesian Tsunami. "Viewed comparatively,” he continued, “I think the Haitian government and the people who are working here have done well in the last six months."

A glimpse into the grim Haitian reality prior to the earthquake according to Oxfam Solidarite, a humanitarian organization working in Haiti for 32 years.

55% of the population lived with less than $1.25 per day

86% of the urban population lived in slums

47% of the population did not have access to basic health services

83% of the population did not have an adequate access to medical care

With a literacy rate of 45 percent, a stunning 55 percent of school-aged children were out of school prior to the demolition. Six months later however, UNICEF estimated that the earthquake affected 90 percent of 4,992 schools. Further, its six-month progress report, Milestones at Six Months, revealed that about 80 percent of schools in Port-au-Prince and all schools in three other major cities that were severely hit have reopened. This was a significant development considering the fact that 60 percent under the age of 18.

“Education is key,” said Ms. Gruloos-Ackermans, UNICEF Representative in Haiti. “We have to have all children at school and we have to have quality of education. It will be really complicated. It’s a long process and we have to be all together – partnering, not competing,” she added. Equally noticeable, these children are not roaming the streets freely where ill-advised practices could attract them.

In addition to education, significant progress has been made in the medical front as well, largely under the radar. Coordinated efforts of the 4 major medical organizations (the Red Cross, MSF, Doctors of the World and FRIEND) have made medical care available to more than a half-million people.

Since the catastrophe, nearly all of the health centers (at least those still standing after the quake) have reopened, administering much needed care free of charge. These organizations have also undertaken massive vaccination campaigns, a deterrent to possible outbreaks of preventable diseases.

The National Center for Cooperation and Development (CNCD) reported that 90 percent of the population had access to health care, whereas before a shocking 60 percent of Haitians could not afford to consult a doctor. Noticeably, there has been no epidemic outbreak; hence the worst did not come. Additionally, several other NGOs have provided safe water, latrines, and other basic health services to the refugees’ camps.

Furthermore, more than 30,000 people have participated in the “Work for Food Program” directed by World Food Program or WFP. Also, more than 150,000 people have received food and other incentives through this project. Moreover, the participants are paid $5 dollars every day for helping clean the streets, the construction of the irrigation canals, and other activities to face the cyclonic season. That is about three times the daily wage the majority of working Haitians made before Jan 12^th.  By year-end, it’s projected that more than 140,000 Haitians will have a regular income thanks to the program. WFP will also make it possible to nourish 700,000 people through December. Although temporary, these kinds of program will help Haitians regain some sanity and keep them from desperate criminal behaviors.

In addition, athletes and high profile celebrities continue to lend moral support to Haitians.  For instance, since soccer has always been a main source of entertainment for Haitians, it was a special treat when Lionel “Leo” Messi, FIFA World Player of the Year, showed up in Haiti eager to have firsthand experience with what he had only learned through media coverage. The world-renowned FC Barcelona and Argentina national football team player said, “It was overwhelming to see the overcrowded displacement camps, the poverty in which people here live,” after visiting Carrefour Aviation, a camp where 50,000 displaced Haitians live in tents. “I believe that sports are really important for children. I learned my most important lessons in life through sport. It is where I had my opportunity, and I wish the same for them.”

Inarguably, many people are suffering in Haiti right now.  Words do not do justice to their ordeals. These flickering flames, though, have fostered at least some hope in the heart of a people yearning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.


Rapadoo,

NGO Republic

"You have several hundred NGOs operating in Haiti, and basically doing what they want, with no regard to the wishes of the Government of Haiti." 

These are the words of Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit expressed during a recent meeting of Caribbean leaders in Montego Bay, Jamaica. "We have called on the UN Secretary General to bring some level of order to the situation, because while we speak about maintaining democracy in Haiti, we cannot at the same time be empowering NGOs to undermine the democratic institutions that are in Haiti," he added.  Rene Preval, the president of Haiti, expressed similar concerns during his interview with Ray Suarez of PBS Newshour. Preval reminded donors that nearly all relief funds were in the hands of NGOs and governments. He also decried the criticism of incompetence, indifference, and corruption leveled as his administration’s response to the crisis as unfair.

Most importantly, though, his remarks revealed the lack control his administration has over the flood of runaway NGOs now operating in Haiti.

Think tanks have been equally critical of many of the aid organizations in Haiti. The Council on Foreign Relations, for instance, in its June 22^nd report Haiti at a Crossroad did not hesitate to direct some harsh criticism at foreign charities for the evident lack of coordinating efforts with the government of Haiti. Chaired by Senator John Kerry, the report aimed to present a comprehensive long-term strategy on the way forward with the reconstruction.

Meanwhile, the agony, confusion, and uncertainty of the afflicted can still be heard over the insurmountable piles of debris, which remain the burial ground for thousands of dead bodies. In the sixth months since the earthquake, some 28,000 people have been relocated to new homes, leaving an unprecedented 1.5 million people still displaced in the urban setting of the capital. Moreover, a Euronews report on the International AIDS conference in Vienna claimed that 120,000 of the refugees living in tents are HIV positive and are living without necessary medication or basic means of survival.

In addition, a new report released by the NGO watchdog, Disaster Accountability Project (DAP) offered extensive details of its 5 months investigation into the affairs of NGO Republic. Sadly, the results echoed the same criticism about the lack of transparency and coordination they have demonstrated during the last six months. The investigation sought to determine whether or not NGOs that solicited funds on behalf of Haiti were actually producing transparent results and offered publicly accessible accounts of their activities.

Much to his dismay, Ben Smilowitz, the Executive Director of the DAP, accounted for 197 such organizations that collected around $1.3 billion from donors to help Haiti; however, only six of them were able to produce factual statements detailing their activities. On the other hand, 128 organizations could not produce any documentation on how the collected money was being spent. As a result, Ben accused the NGOs of violating the public trust while the refugee camps hang vulnerably in the path of the rainy and hurricane seasons.

Summing up his frustration, Skerrit inferred, "We believe that the situation is untenable, and we should put an immediate stop to it. We must call on the international institutions and government to desist from putting the resources into NGOs."

Rapadoo,

State of the Globe

                                                                           Global Economic Pulse

              As recently as 2007, the global economy grew 5.2 percent and celestial choirs were singing Kumbayah. At last, a golden era could be seen in the hazy distance. To some, it was a most awaited sign of prosperity, stability, and constant growth. According to some economists, that pattern was not at all sporadic. That rate of growth was consistent over a few years, an upward mobility caused by emerging markets such as China with an 11 percent growth, India 9 percent, Russia 8 percent, and Brazil 7 percent, which lead to serious attitudinal changes over all four corners of the Globe. In addition, both the Middle East and Africa saw a boom in economic developments, which contributed to a very strong third quarter in 2006.

That atmosphere, according to Economywatch.com, created a host of predictions and theories by experts.  As they looked into their crystal balls, they predicted years of unfettered growth. Those predictions were based on the idea that the economic progress of the fore-mentioned giants, along with few others, would provide a much-needed counterbalance to stagnancy or slow growth elsewhere in the world. Much to their surprise however, the global economy had turned into an airliner deprived of all of its engines at cruising altitude. The nosedive that followed was comparable to that of the great depression of the 1930s. As a result, worries spread quicker than California wildfires and the world was painfully witnessing its Armageddon in slow motion: capitalist ideals were being tested and it looked as if they would not withstand the test of times.

Naturally, reactive governments around the world dispatched all of their emergency response teams to the financial scene in hope of containment; they had to prevent what was commonly referred to as “the end of the world.” They could not allow that airplane to hit the ground at such an unprecedented velocity. Hence, the term bailout got mainstreamed and major corporations scrambled for lifelines. Later though, when it became evident that it was another sad case of highway robbery by corporate capitalists, everyone was familiar with the classic ending that would follow: tons of ordinary folks would lose everything while also picking up the bill of incompetence, immorality, and insatiable greed.  The June 2010 report of the Congressional Oversight Committee (COC) on the AIG bailout found here attested to this rationale. It revealed that at least here in the US, taxpayers’ wallet was the only target of the government, $182 billion worth. The report specifically indicated that there were other options that would be less costly to the citizens, but government financial gurus ignored them.

            Today however, if you believe some “experts,” the economic calamity is in the world’s rearview mirror and everyone should breathe a huge sigh of relief while navigating through the debris. One of their biggest indicators has been the recently revised GDP for the year-ending quarter of 2009. The US saw a 5.9 percent growth, one that is met with suspicions by investors. Meanwhile, other experts are describing the current state of the world economy as a landmine highlighting investor’s insecurity, nervousness, and sporadic reactivity. Still, some insist that we have turned the corner and that slowly but surely the world is on its way to recovery.

            In this September 2009 report, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hinted at the stabilization of global economic conditions. The report stated that major corrections have been made in bond spread, credit markets, share prices, currency swap index, business inventories, world trade volumes, export trade, and housing markets. It specifically pointed out that, “Industrial production is on the increase in major emerging countries, a trend which shows that the current crisis deviates from the Great Depression in the 1930s.”

            All of this probably means nothing to an ordinary guy such as myself, but these reports seem to be indicating that the world economy, although far from a full recovery, may have left the ICU, a hopeful sign that could mean that I will probably have a job again in the near future to regain some sanity. The OECD report also mentioned that the poorest countries would be swimming in the Red Sea for the foreseeable future. They were hit the hardest by the teeth of Armageddon and did not have the appropriate economic structure in place, as did the major economies of the globe. This translates to more days scanning the debris for survival for the regressing economies.

            Rapadoo,

Sources: Economicwatch.com, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Congressional Oversight Committee (COC), and Money Morning. 

Corporate Ethics (1)

From the original Robber Barons of the 19^th century to the soldiers of fortune of the 21^st century, corporate governance has not seen much of an ideological evolution. While it is important to distinguish between entrepreneurial capitalists and their political counterparts, the Barons’ logic has virtually been similar, unchanged: employ the principles of Ethical Egoism to drive their bottom line.  The former used private monies to monopolize particular industries; the latter influenced the government as a mean to that very end. Political entrepreneurs gamed the system through lobbyism, which usually resulted in huge subsidies from the government and/or regulations that either helped crush competitors or allowed them unfettered access to unlimited resources. Some of them, more recently, have destroyed reputable companies diving off the cliff of profitability while trying to feed their enormous appetite for cash. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is a perfect example of exploitive capitalism. Experts concurred that their filing marked the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Over the past two decades, people have watched in horror as “too big to fail” empires turned into sinkholes, literally. The list of these companies is rather extensive with Enron at the very top, Bernie Madoff, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, HealthSouth, Tyco, Satyam, AIG, Waste Management, Freddie Mac, Adelphia Communications, Arthur Andersen, InClone Systems just to name a few.

First, some novice on Wall Street would pitch a green idea: one that would make investors rich. As a result, financial gurus would line up like migratory birds, would abandon previously held values, and would follow the money. Initially, ideas would be greenest and they would bathe in vast piles of money. Consequently, novices would be called geniuses, pioneers, innovators and the like. However, once ideas would start to bleed, names such as mercenaries and robber barons would start to float around. Inevitably, people would be left distraught and bankrupt.  

In the case of Enron, greed overshadowed any scruples the hierarchical leadership may have had. At the pinnacle of their success, investors became tropical flamingos seeking favorable climates during winter months. With the wind at their tails and a cloudless sky, Enron executives flew at very high altitude avoiding predatory eagles, governmental regulations.

According to Bethany McLean, the Fortune magazine reporter who was the first to question how energy giant Enron made its money, there was a linear relationship between profitability and the confidence level of Enron executives. Increases in the company’s profit margin, an elaborated scam, emboldened their confidence level, created a false sense of invulnerability, and gave birth to an Everest of arrogance. Hence, what might have seemed unethical and/or even demented to common criminals constituted ingenious strategies to Enron elites. Nevertheless, when gravity got hold of this floating feather, the company’s free fall outdid Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Naturally, the ripple effects were an avalanche of lawsuits, scapegoats, suicides, reactive policies, shocks and dismay, anger and distrust. Some were accused, arrested, trialed, convicted, and jailed while the stolen moneys exchanged hands from culprits to lawyers, judges, and the like.

More recently, towards the end of 2006, green ideas flooded the financial sector causing an unprecedented migration. These ideas were not indigenous to US investors because flamingos around the globe caught the wind of tropical climates and followed the mainstream. Predictably, like in all previous Wall Street exploitive scams, Armageddon came. The only difference was that it showed up in the form of $700 billion. The usual suspects played their roles until the stories outlived its cycle in the headlines. Meanwhile, anguish and distrust lingered.

           Rarely mentioned though, is the fact that at the heart of all corporate greed and disappointments lay the theory of destruction, Ethical Egoism. Virtually, any corporation that has touched that model has fallen to its inevitable death, yet time after time the theory reincarnates as a new, innovative paradigm. While in fact, there is nothing new under the sun of that theory.


Rapadoo
Part 2 follows.

Corporate Ethics (2)

In her book, “the virtue of selfishness” (1961), Ayn Rand argued that the achievement of his own happiness is a man’s highest moral purpose. She was and still is closely associated with ethical egoism. Ayn Rand argued against the ethics of altruism saying that it was a totally destructive idea; rather, she fiercely advocated for what she called the “reality of the individual person.” According to that logic, when people decided to help others, they were sacrificing the self at their expense. Those rules, she insisted, were imposed by a society that treated people as “sacrificial animals” because an attempt at helping others constituted a surrender of obligations to the self. In essence, take all you can at the expense of others if necessary because ultimately your only obligations are egocentric.

            In spite of the widespread refutation of the theory of Ethical Egoism by philosophers and theorists alike, in particular James and Stuart Rachels, the corporate world seems oblivious to its destructive nature not only on struggling individuals but also even on the entire economic infrastructure of a society. In their book “The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” Rachels argued that the theory of Ethical Egoism was an arbitrary doctrine that was equitable to the principles of racism. Because, according to them, both doctrines violated the Principle of Equal Treatment, they were unacceptable. The following argument exposed the weaknesses of the theory of destruction. “It {Ethical Egoism} advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interest of those in the first group as more important that the interests of those in the second group” (2007, 87). This ideology has conflict written all over it. Nevertheless, Corporate Capitalism continues to jump off of the same cliff singing its best mantra “the customer is always right.”

            Meanwhile, on the surface, corporations advocate for truth and honesty. For instance, they put all new applicants to extensive psychological assessments in search of the brightest and most honest candidates. They also have zero tolerance policies in place to prevent theft and dishonesty. Further, they employ reputable public relations firms to paint an attractive portrait of their companies.

On the other hand, they build ambitious marketing departments to create deceptive strategies to gain and retain the public’s attention. Further, they hire merciless hangmen, their CEOs, to see their profit margins through the roof. The double standard couldn’t be more evident. Sing lullabies to customers while conspiring against them. Executives always say that they are acting on behalf of the shareholders, yet when, through their ill-advised practices, they destroy an entire company, shareholders and workers alike lose everything. Even worse, we now know that such practices can send the world economy spinning on its tail, leaving companies’ scrambling for government bailouts in an effort to stay afloat.

            How then do victims, the consumer, trust such entities that know no ethical boundaries or have any moral standards? Thus far, the well being of the consumer those companies rely on for growth is virtually non-existent. Moreover, the hangmen rarely get punished and those who do get leniency. In addition, the most cunning of mercenaries jump off and ride their golden parachutes into the shadows of luxury. Eventually, the stories fall off the media’s radar. These so-called watchdogs that are only concerned with tomorrow’s big highlights and their ratings. This is a win-win scenario for the egoists’ ideologists and a lose-lose for the impotent worker or consumer.

            In all fairness, a selective democracy such as ours thrives on a healthy private sector. The government cannot be the sole driver of the economy. The inevitable result would be a socialist society, an ideograph that would send chills down the spines of citizens of any free and democratic society. Capitalism’s dependency upon an honest and prosperous private sector is that of entrepreneurship on consumerism and vice versa. Hence, we must find a way to coexist absent any ethical egoist greed.

            This problem calls for a paradigm shift; a new business model that would emphasize innovations over greed.  Consumers should no longer be handed the tab of highway robbers whose wealth is made at their expense. The message should be clear and concise: There is no reward for deviance. The out-dated and arbitrary doctrine of ethical egoism must be thrown out and replaced.

If corporations really want to reestablish the rusted trust and respect of consumers in corporate capitalism, they need to get back to basics and treat the customers not as prey, but individuals with needs. A new paradigm based on mutual respect and equal treatment would not hinder profitability. In fact, it would ensure consumer loyalty and guarantee long-term success as it always has. After all, research has revealed that we are habitual users, which tend to migrate continually to the same or similar activities. Eventually, customers even show a degree of identification with products and/or service providers, whoever they may be. Instead of destroying the lives of individuals, communities and even societies, it serves a greater purpose to ensure stability, prosperity, and ultimately happiness for all.

Rapadoo